🚀 go-pugleaf

ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>) writes:

> Sami Sihvonen <ss@janiika.com> writes:
>
>> Please tell me more about Linux-kernel based operating systems that
>> use no GNU Project efforts.  I have been asking it several times
>> here and got no replies.
>
> The _point_ is that it's possible, and therefor that the GNU tools are
> not required for a usable system. It might not be what either of us would
> consider particularly useful, but it's possible.

What crap. The `_point_', as you call it, is that what you actually have,
in reality, on the CD in front of you, has GNU bits & pieces from a
fundamental level up (glibc, fileutils, textutils,...), therefore it's fair
enough to call it GNU/Linux.

>                                        You still haven't addressed the
> major point: why give credit in the name to a particular organisation,
> one which hasn;t even contributed the majority of code? It doesn't make
> sense.

I suppose majority bums-on-seats is your only measure of importance of
author of code.

>> Sure, you can boot Linux-kernel without any GNU Project efforts. You can
>> fliush your toilet without any water too...
>
> No, actually, you can't. A toilet without water is nothing more than a
> bowl. A kernel without the GNU utilities is still an operating system. A
> fairly poor one, but it works.

And it allows you to do what? The point is that you can substitute
orange-juice to flush your bog if you want, but there aren't that many,
indeed any well-known, non-glibc-based nor GNU-using linux distros out
there.

~Tim
-- 
Seedy heroes and silver tills               |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
Sinking suns on a sea of thrills            |http://spodzone.org.uk/